For centuries, the Church and science have been at odds. Some periods of history saw the Church with power over what scientists could and couldn't "discover" (see Copernicus), while other periods of history saw scientists seemingly "against" those in the Church. And many on both sides of this divide would have you think that you have to "choose a side". That's how everything seemingly works these days, but the best path is a mutually-respecting dialog.
And beyond that, we have to ask: "I believe X about the Bible and science, but my friend believes Y about them; can we remain in relationship if we don't resolve this?". I think that really gets to the heart of how we should engage in topics like this.
We are so used to picking sides that we tend to separate out our understandings of faith vs science. So it comes as no surprise to me or anyone else when you're faced with the choice between "what the Bible says" and "what science says". But is that a choice that's really required?
Is the Bible anti-science?
We first have to inspect the question itself and look at what the Bible actually says. This question comes in many forms.
- "Is the Bible anti-science? anti-evolution?"
- "Does the Bible reject 'modern science'?"
- "Does modern science disprove the Bible?"
- "Can I trust the Bible, even with what modern science tells me about these (insert talking points here) things?"
And on and on. They're not new questions, but thanks to responses to them and lines drawn over this subject on either side, many young people grow up being handed only a single set of beliefs on these subjects which are also very tightly coupled to the core of their faith. Then they enter the broader world and feel like they can't live with the tension that they're told these two sides contain.
But rather than be dismissive, we really should seek to see what Biblical perspectives are out there, not to mention actually understanding scientific research.
Young Earth Creationism
The answer to these questions for many in evangelical American spaces of the past half-century have been found in Young Earth creationism. Young Earth creationism (YEC) is a combination of one method of interpreting the Bible combined with a segment of science based upon that reading.
Problems with Young Earth Creationism
Any time a field of science has its end-goal in mind, there's opportunity for missing the mark scientifically. YEC itself generates its own separate study into other pieces of "normal" science, decidedly set against the "scientific agenda" that non YEC-er's purportedly are pushing.
Additionally, the view is based upon a surface-level reading of scripture which doesn't require external input about Biblical context. YEC promotes itself as "the only faithful view on... X" where X could be any item on the list of views.
Context-Aware Perspective
When looking at what the Bible says about something, are we to merely take words off of a page and compare apples-to-apples vs. Science textbooks? Well, first we have to ask a few questions:
- Are you using English words to do that? — The Bible wasn't written in English, so vocabulary here isn't always going to be word-for-word, though modern translations overall do a great job.
- Are you considering the literary context of this passage? — There's a lot of poetry and narrative (i.e. this may be a true story, but it's not documentary footage) in the Bible. Is the point of this style of text for discussing "how" or is there possibly a deeper message?
- Are you considering who the words were originally written to? — You're probably not the first intended audience for that text. No, I'm not saying the Bible isn't "for" you, but it wasn't initially written "to" you.
We don't all have to be scholars to appreciate the text of Scripture, but if we're intent on making informed decisions about where it fits in relation to the culture around us, it helps to have some understanding backed by research.
Biblical Context
When you start reading the Bible, it should become clear that there are some things that differ from our modern, western, post-enlightenment, scientific viewpoint. However, I'd argue that the Bible doesn't "refute science" because that's not even the point. I mean, the primary portions of it used for scientific debate weren't even birthed out of a society that had any real understanding of science in the way that we see it today. So how could we expect these portions of scripture to be directly overlaid onto modern discussions from a scientific perspective about:
- The age of the earth
- Human origins
- Accounts of ancient catastrophic events like the flood
- The entire scientific field of geology
- And there are plenty other things we could add...
These stories certainly present a different set of assumptions than we have about the world we live in, but does that necessarily mean that they're in opposition to any modern scientific data? And what exactly do we miss out on if we do that?
I think first we have to step back and acknowledge what it is that we're engaging with. The Bible as we call it is not one single, bounded book as we interact with it today, but it is a library of books. And every single one of those books comes out of a context that is completely foreign to us as modern, scientific, post-enlightenment, western thinkers. I list all those descriptions of us to remind us that we are not the first people receiving and engaging with these texts.
Recognizing context is not some foreign task of "placing" them into a foreign-to-us historical context. It's actually recognizing where they came from. All communication is contextualized. And when we recognize that, we start to get a much clearer picture of the beauty of stories like what we read at the beginning of Genesis, for example.
Ancient Near-Eastern Context
Neighbors of ancient Israel like the Egyptians, Babylonians, etc. had their own creation and human origins stories. Many on the more Bible-pessimistic side will tell you that any of the similarities here show that the Israelites got these stories from their neighbors and that's it. However, these stories do not provide counter-evidence, but rather display the divine inspiration we see in Genesis.
Creation stories and related myths from the ancient Near East like the Babylonian Enuma Elish, Egyptian creation traditions, and the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh paint a picture of multiple gods working together or fighting as part of the world’s origin. They also display a view of the gods as limited, embodied, and divided by conflict, while humans are often created primarily to serve the gods’ needs. In these cultures, divine likeness and authority were usually associated with the king—not with every human being.
What do we see when we compare that to Genesis? If we put these stories in conversation with each other, the Israelites clearly did not see their God in the same way. The Genesis creation narratives give us a few key truths:
- God alone is powerful enough to single-handedly create with just his Word.
- God created humans not as scum or slaves, but as the divine image with whom he is partnering to bring about his will on earth
- God made ALL humans in his image, not just a single king as their neighbors would believe
And there's so much more within the story, but these ideas alone demonstrate a context-aware Biblical approach to uncovering what's going on in these texts.
Young Earth Creation Context
For lots of us having grown up in the evangelical church in America, it's a good idea to be aware of some history. Ignoring other perspectives – even those squarely within orthodoxy – is a dangerous choice. For instance, the "fundamentalists" of the early 20th century fundamentalist/modernist split would not have even fallen in line with what YEC groups preach today. They had a much more nuanced understanding of scripture based on interpreting scripture from their own scientific understanding back then. Meanwhile, you'll be told in no uncertain terms that YEC supporters maintain the "historical position of the church", all the while we have plenty of evidence going back 100 years (or even 1500+ years to Augustine!) of faithful, Bible-believing, Jesus-following Christians wrestling with these issues and coming to different conclusions.
But don't you believe the Bible?
To be clear... yes! I do believe the Bible. I would even go as far as to say that I respect it enough to approach it on its own terms and not terms that I dictate as a modern person... and that is the difference.
My Own Story of Discovering Perspective
The fact that other ancient near-eastern peoples had their own creation narratives to Genesis 1-3 should not be surprising. However, in the environment where I grew up, I first learned this in college. Just being told how there were (even if only partially) similarities in those stories to "ours" from Genesis was completely scandalizing to me. The result of this sort of information should be an appreciation for what these stories say in relation to each other, but as a young, Southern Baptist kid, I wasn't able to process and gain anything from this besides "this information is bad, and I should reject it to continue believing in God". It was exactly the type of thing I was "warned" about in attending a "liberal" school by my then-pastor (he was referring to Baptist-affiliated Mercer University that was just at the point of getting “kicked out” of the Southern Baptist Convention… good for them 😅).
Reflecting back on that experience years later, I realize the danger that we are putting young people (and adults, for that matter) in when we set them on that path. When we so tightly bind core tenets of our faith (like the divinity of Christ, his life, death, burial, and resurrection) to things that are still debated within orthodox faith (like the age of the earth), instead of providing a solid foundational core of what's really important, we end up sending them off with a house of cards, each one equally-important, yet together completely fragile.
So what is the point?
The point is not that you should believe me or even forget everything you ever learned. The point is that any push toward a "you're either on my side of this issue or you're out of the faith" approach is a dangerous fundamentalism. Our goal and ideal in all of this sort of dialogue should be one based on mutual respect and submission toward each other.
- Our priority should be relationships over rhetoric
- We don't have to resolve every tension
- We must acknowledge what is true on each side of the debate
Certainly the outcome of any conversation along these lines isn't going to be easy for all parties involved. But if we really choose to put each other first, we might all be able to get our focus back on what's important: loving God, loving people.